Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site topaz.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbdkc1!desoto!packard!topaz!josh
From: josh@topaz.ARPA (J Storrs Hall)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: What is socialism?
Message-ID: <519@topaz.ARPA>
Date: Tue, 5-Feb-85 01:45:28 EST
Article-I.D.: topaz.519
Posted: Tue Feb  5 01:45:28 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 6-Feb-85 02:11:46 EST
References: <309@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP> <329@topaz.ARPA> <501@fisher.UUCP> <topaz.420> <1340@dciem.UUCP> <516@topaz.ARPA>
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
Lines: 39

I'm quite disappointed in the response I've gotten from the socialists
on the net concerning my "Socialist nations kill millions of their
own citizens" contention.  Replies I *have* gotten fall into two main
camps: (a) Quibbles about definitions ("those aren't *really* true
socialists"), and (b) vitriolic personal attacks.  I haven't seen
anyone address the actual question--Am I to assume that socialists
consider genocidal tendencies a regrettable minor flaw in their schemes?

(a) definitions:  As I stated before, I don't care to quibble about them.
However, I will point out that "socialist" is widely used as an
umbrella term by collectivists of all stripes; it has positive 
connotations, especially in Europe, and everyone calls themselves
"Socialist" and rabidly denies that all the others are.  I would 
generally prefer the term "collectivist", but the collectivists
on the net have been calling themselves "socialists."  

(b) Personalities:  There is probably some benefit in this inasmuchas
it temporarily raises the level of cardiovascular activity, giving
us sedentary programmers needed exercise.  As far as political
discourse is concerned, however, I am reminded of the old story 
about the wise man in Athens who always watched the public debates.
His friends asked him why he did, because he did not know the language.
"No," he admitted, "but the man who screams the loudest always loses."

Genocide:  I'm still at a loss why no collectivist has seriously tried
to refute the contention that the denial of individual rights, and the
ascendancy of public over private good, marks a major step on the 
path to "The Final Solution".  I do not say that it is sufficient,
but it is certainly necessary. 

Someone who values "group rights" over individual rights *must
believe it right* to kill someone when the benefits to the group
exceed the total detriments.  However psychotic his worldview,
Hitler's collectivist logic was unassailable:  He believed that 
the benefit of Germany as a whole was being served.  I don't care
whether you call it "socialist", or "fascist", or "squat",
the collectivist ideology that denies individual rights is wrong.

--JoSH